Loading...
2010-05-25 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes May 25, 2010 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 2010 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 25, 2010, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lally, Commissioners Field, Hennes, McManus, Norton (arrived at 7:01 p.m.), Povolny, and Viksnins (arrived at 7:27 p.m.). Those absent: None. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Acting Public Works Director /City Engineer Ryan Ruzek, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. Approval of April 27, 2010, Minutes COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2010, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Commissioner Povolny) Hearings PLANNING CASE #10 -12 Troy Troje 574 Hiawatha Avenue Application Withdrawn It was noted that the applicant had requested this application be postponed so a survey can be completed. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO POSTPONE CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING CASE #10 -12 TO THE JUNE 22, 2010, MEETING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Norton arrived at 7:01 p.m. PLANNING CASE #10 -14 Clear Wireless, LLC 1850 Eagle Ridge Drive Conditional Use Permit to install wireless equipment on an existing rooftop Planner Stephen Grittman explained that Lawrence Coleman of FMHC Corporation, on behalf of Clear Wireless, LLC, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to mount wireless antennas on the rooftop of the South Ridge Condominium building. He used a map to identify the location of this multifamily building and explained the application to install a cellular antenna on the roof, which already has a T- Mobile antenna. He displayed a site map and noted the location of the two towers and ground equipment area. Mr. Grittman reviewed the ordinance criteria for installation of a tower and advised this proposal meets the height requirement. However, the applicant is required to paint the installation, where visible above the roof line, a color similar to the surrounding area, similar to the T- Mobile installation. Staff recommends approval with a number of conditions including the color, receipt of building permit, and an application signed by the property owner. Fencing around the ground Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2010 installation will be tacked onto the side of the T- Mobile fence and extend just beyond to the hedges. However, it is recommended the fence completely enclose their installation and match the existing fence. Mr. Grittman stated the applicant needs to abide by all technical regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Since it appears to meet all Zoning Code requirements, staff recommends approval. Commissioner McManus asked if the applicant has received applicable Federal, State, and local licenses. Mr. Grittman stated they did not submit that information but it can be verified with the applicant. Chair Lally advised that a resident had asked about safety issues with towers and if there are any known health issues since this is located within a residential area. Mr. Grittman stated this issue has been raised over last few years and staff understands there are no adverse health effects. Larry Coleman, representing Clear Wireless, 7400 Metro Boulevard, #260, Edina, stated this is their third application with Clear Wireless who is developing a network and they will make application for a fourth site in several months. He displayed a rendering depicting the difference in size between their equipment compared to that of other carriers and displayed an aerial photo simulation of the current building to show how it will look following the Clear Wire installation and also the view of the T- Mobile equipment. He noted the existing T- Mobile ground equipment fence enclosure is surrounding by large hedges and they would propose to extend that fence to the hedges since the homeowner association's maintenance staff wants access to maintain the hedges. He pointed out that completely fencing their equipment would not provide additional screening because the hedges already provide full screening. Chair Lally asked if they could fence their equipment and still allow space to maintain the hedges. Mr. Coleman described their lease area is a defined seven feet by seven feet to accommodate their 25 -inch cabinet. Chair Lally stated the fencing is for screening and to keep people away from the equipment. Mr. Coleman stated they are willing to fence the leased area but were trying to accommodate the request of the maintenance staff. Mr. Coleman stated they are willing to paint the equipment the color indicated by staff and have secured all necessary licenses, which he will submit to staff tomorrow. He stated he will obtain a signature on the application from the homeowner's association. Commissioner Field stated the fence request poses a problem because the maintenance staff has made the request to not fully enclose the equipment. However, the maintenance staff is not the applicant nor association owner. Mr. Coleman stated they had proposed a gate in the fence extending to the hedges but can make it a complete box with a gate at the hedges, if so directed. Commissioner Field asked about the option of an open fence that allows children and others to gain access to the equipment. Mr. Grittman agreed that the need for screening ability for this fence is less because of the hedges. He noted that if the property owners were not concerned about their own residents gaining access, he could be persuaded that a full enclosure is not necessary. Commissioner Field asked if this could be approved subject to the signed application and an indication from the property owner that the open fence would be preferred. Commissioner McManus asked if there is any danger to animals or people with the equipment should someone gain access. Mr. Coleman stated their equipment cabinet is designed to be vandal proof, similar to traffic control signal boxes. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. An unidentified resident stated she is the co -owner of the building next door where many elderly live who are afraid of storms and lightening. She asked if the tower will draw lightening or cause problems during a storm. Mr. Coleman stated the tower will be fully grounded. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2010 COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. 2. THE APPLICATION SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND A LETTER FROM THE ASSOCIATION DEMONSTRATING AGREEMENT FOR THE LOCATION OF THE ANTENNAS AND EQUIPMENT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHALL ALSO BE SUBMITTED. 3. OPTIONAL AND AT THE DISCRETION OF STAFF, FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED TO SURROUND THE ENTIRE CLEAR WIRELESS GROUND EQUIPMENT LEASE AREA. THE FENCE SHALL BE OF THE SAME HEIGHT AND MATERIAL AS THE EXISTING FENCE LOCATED AROUND THE T- MOBILE GROUND EQUIPMENT. 4. THE APPLICANT SHALL ABIDE BY ALL REGULATIONS IN SECTION 12 -1J -6 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Field stated he would have liked an indication from the homeowner's association whether they agree with the revision to the fence enclosure. Commissioner McManus noted this is an option that can be used by the property owners at any time and it has been indicated there is no danger. Since it is an issue of aesthetics, he thinks it should be handled by the property owner. Commissioner Norton noted if the property owner wants the enclosure, they can make that a requirement of the lease or build it themselves. AYES NAYS Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 1, 2010, meeting. Commissioner Field stated this is the second case in four months that has included insufficient information and lacked the applicant's signature. He stated this is the last case he will vote to recommend approval, even if he supports the application, if it is not complete and signed by the applicant. Chair Lally agreed with Commissioner Field that it would be easier for the Commission to make its recommendation if the applicant were in attendance instead of the applicant's representative. Commissioner Viksnins arrived at 7:27 p.m. PLANNING CASE #10 -15 Mark Johnson 1646 Mayfield Heights Road Critical Area Permit for a shed Planner Stephen Grittman explained that Mark Johnson is requesting approval of a Critical Area Permit for the construction of a 144 square foot detached accessory building in the rear yard of his property at 1646 Mayfield Heights Road, which is zoned R -1, One Family Residential. Mr. Grittman displayed a site plan to identify the subject parcel and location of the proposed 12 -foot by 12 -foot shed. He advised it meets the Zoning Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2010 requirements for size and location but requires a Critical Area Permit because it is located within the Mississippi River Corridor. In this case, there appears to be little, if any, impact to the river corridor by construction of this relatively small shed for residential storage. Mr. Grittman stated the application is consistent with the Critical Area Ordinance and staff recommends approval. Mark Johnson, 1646 Mayfield Heights Road, the applicant, stated this accessory structure was designed according to the Code. Commissioner Viksnins asked if any neighbors had commented on the application. Mr. Johnson stated he spoke with the owner of 1650 Mayfield Heights Road and the owner of 1040 Sibley Memorial Highway had no objection since she has a similar shed. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NORTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 7 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS REQUESTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES MUST FOLLOW THE CITY'S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 1, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE #10 -16 Dorothy Haffely 1857 Dodd Road Conditional Use Permit and a Variance to the front yard setback to replace two structures (garage and utility building) with one three -car garage Planner Stephen Grittman explained that Dorothy Haffely is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the construction of a detached garage within the required 30 -foot setback on her property at 1857 Dodd Road. The applicant wishes to replace a two -stall detached garage and utility building with a new, three -stall detached garage measuring 748 square feet in size. Mr. Grittman displayed a site plan to identify the subject property, location of two buildings to be removed and new three -stall garage, which requires a CUP to assure it is within the character of the property and neighborhood. Staff finds the request is within requirements for a CUP and complies with the size requirement. The applicant also requested a Variance for the setback from Willow Lane. Mr. Grittman advised that 30 feet is required and the applicant is requesting a 25 -foot setback, which is where the buildings currently sit. To approve a Variance, the Planning Commission needs to find that there is something on the property that makes it impractical or impossible to place the building in a location that meets the 30 -foot setback. The applicant is seeking to build on the same location as the detached building. Mr. Grittman advised it appears to staff that it is possible to meet the required setback, the requested location is a matter of convenience to the applicant, and a hardship is not present to compel 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2010 approval of the requested Variance. Staff recommends approval of the CUP with the condition that the garage be moved to meet the 30 -foot setback, south about 5 feet, and that the setback Variance not be approved. Chair Lally noted if the garage is moved five feet to meet the setback, there is no need for a Variance. Mr. Grittman stated that is correct and described the different standards for the CUP and Variance. Commissioner Field asked about the square footage of the current garage. It was noted the current buildings are 656 square feet and the new structure would be 748 square feet. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the current garage has a Variance. Mr. Grittman stated it has been in place for a long time and is a legal nonconforming structure. Commissioner Viksnins asked if there is a topographical reason to approve the Variance. Mr. Grittman stated there is not, the lot is fairly flat but it would impact the applicant's garden space. Commissioner Povolny asked about the setback of the home. Mr. Grittman stated it is set back 35 feet. Commissioner McManus asked which direction the house faces. Mr. Grittman stated the house faces north and the proposed garage would have to be moved away from Willow Lane to eliminate the need for a Variance. It was noted the address is from Dodd Road and the setback is 30 feet regardless if from the front yard or side yard. Dorothy Haffely, 1857 Dodd Road, the applicant, stated the garage is off the kitchen and she wants the five -foot Variance because otherwise it would cut the yard in half She explained that she babysits her grandchildren and does not allow them to play in the front yard alongside Dodd Road. In addition, moving the garage back five feet would make the back yard smaller and cut off her view of the gardens from the deck. Mark Haffely, the applicant's son, pointed out that the proposed garage location does not differ from the location of the existing two buildings. The new building would match the house stucco. He used a site plan to point out the location of the deck which will be blocked if the garage is moved back five feet. Chair Lally stated the existing buildings are in the same location as the proposed three -car garage. Mr. Haffely stated that is correct and the driveway will be slightly enlarged to accommodate the third stall. Commissioner Field stated he is always concerned with granting a Variance because a new property owner may not babysit grandchildren yet the building would be so located. He asked if using the existing slabs would avoid the need for a Variance. Mr. Grittman stated that the existing construction is relevant to the placement of the future garage and to distinguish this application from future applications. Mr. Haffely advised that the cement slab is 50 years old and not useable. Chair Lally stated it is a case of replacing an existing legally nonconforming use. Commissioner Field stated that once the slab is removed, it is no longer an existing legally nonconforming use. Mr. Haffely stated the other option is to leave the existing buildings, which are an eyesore. Chair Lally stated they are legally nonconforming uses until they have "lived their life" and are removed. The Planning Commission's challenge is to find a hardship in order to consider approval of a Variance. He stated he does not know whether the placement of the existing deck would result in a hardship if the garage is shifted five feet farther back due to loss of current views. Commissioner Hennes asked about the location of the gardens. Mr. Haffely used a site plan to identify the location of the existing gardens and trees. Commissioner Hennes noted that if sitting on the deck, you could still look to the southwest if the garage is shifted back five feet. Mr. Haffely clarified that is not the case because the relative angle will completely block the view and the deck cannot be relocated due to the location of the porch. 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2010 Ms. Haffely stated she has lived in this house for 37 years. Commissioner Viksnins asked what is located to the south of the structures. Mr. Haffely stated there are gardens and lawn behind the existing buildings that would be removed and relocated. Commissioner Povolny asked what is the actual hardship, noting it cannot be personal or financial. Mr. Haffely stated resale of the house would be higher if there is a view from the deck. He noted this is almost an acre of land and more than half could not be viewed if the garage is moved back five feet. Mr. Haffely stated if the Variance is not approved, the existing buildings will remain and be repaired. Commissioner McManus stated he understands the buildings are very old. Mr. Haffely stated the structure is built directly on the slab so water is causing the base plates to deteriorate and the stucco to crack and yellow. However, if needed, he can replace the base plates. Ms. Haffely explained that in the winter, the snow melts and runs into the garage and freezes. Commissioner McManus stated from an aesthetic point, he would like the buildings replaced. However, the Variance cannot be considered without the existence of a hardship. Commissioner Hennes stated he finds the Variance process to be very inflexible, noted the applicant has lived in this home for 37 years and wants to improve her property. Commissioner McManus asked what could be done with the garage so it remains an existing legally non- conforming structure. Mr. Grittman stated it can be removed and replaced, but not expanded. Mr. Haffely stated he called staff several times and was told that if the slab or building are removed, the building location has to conform to the required setback. Commissioner Field stated he has also seen cases where part of the old foundation has to remain to eliminate the need for a Variance. Mr. Grittman agreed that used to be the case but Variance regulations have changed and the current law is that you can remove the entire nonconforming structure and replace it as long as it is done within six months and is not expanded. Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek stated the expanded area needs the Variance so if that (expanded) area is setback, it would be compliant with State law. Commissioner Povolny noted this is a nice flat lot and if the proposed garage is moved back five feet and west 15 feet, it would retain the view from the deck. It was noted that the driveway would then have to be removed and relocated. Chair Lally stated the options are to move the entire garage back five feet, construct only a two -car garage on the existing slab, construct a three -stall garage with the third stall set back, or construct a three -stall garage that is set back five feet but also westerly to open the view. Commissioner McManus asked about the option to tear down the shed and relocated it. Ms. Haffely stated his mother would like to have only one building. Chair Lally noted hardships may be the placement of the existing deck, moving the garage back five feet would severely diminish the use of the deck, and the existing driveway is off Willow Lane, moving the garage 15 feet to the west would require the driveway to be replaced, and it is likely that street access would not change. Mr. Haffely stated if the garage is moved to the west it would impact two very large 60- year -old Silver Maple Trees. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. no Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2010 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 7 NAYS 0 The Planning Commission agreed to consider the CUP and Variance requests separately. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE DETACHED GARAGE SHALL BE LOCATED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. 2. AN UPDATED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL. 3. THE DETACHED GARAGE SHALL MATCH THE HOME IN COLOR AND MATERIALS. Mr. Grittman suggested the Variance request be considered first since a condition of the CUP is to comply with setback requirements. Commissioner Field withdrew his motion from the floor and Commissioner Hennes removed his second to that motion. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED, BASED ON THE HARDSHIP WITH THE PROPERTY IN ITS TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE DETACHED GARAGE SHALL MATCH THE HOME IN COLOR AND MATERIALS. 2. THE ACTUAL SETBACK OF THE EXISTING GARAGE SHALL BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL. Commissioner Field noted everything was constructed around the location of the deck and porch. Commissioner Hennes stated the applicant is requesting to rebuild on the same site but the new building is obviously larger. Commissioner Povolny pointed out that the existing buildings were constructed in 1948 and, at that time, Willow Lane may have been a one -lane dirt road. However, now Willow Lane has a regular road width. He stated he does not believe allowing a five foot Variance results in a negative impact. Commissioner Viksnins stated he cannot support a Variance since no hardship has been found and it relates to an aesthetic issue to view the garden and have continuity of the yard. Commissioner McManus explained that he supports the project because it will improve the area; however, will withhold his vote because he believed the request did not meet the requirement of hardship. Chair Lally stated he thinks the applicants have looked at all alternatives and found that none will work. He stated he can support the finding of hardship since the application involves a combination of replacing the two -stall garage and attached utility shed with a three -stall garage in the same location, the requested location would allow use of the deck, and due to the limitations surrounding the current access to Willow Lane. Commissioner Hennes stated he thinks there are enough findings to support a Variance. 7 Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2010 Commissioner Field asked about input from neighbors.. Mr. Grittman stated none provided commented. Commissioner Povolny stated the existing buildings are old and now the Willow Lane is wider so the 30 -foot setback is no longer there. He pointed out this is a nice clean property and this would be an improvement. AYES 4 NAYS 2 (Commissioners Norton and Viksnins) ABSTAIN 1 (Commissioner McManus) Commissioner Field noted that several months ago, the Planning Commission considered an application where the road condition had changed. Mr. Grittman asked whether Variance approval is to construct the new building at the existing building setback. The Planning Commission indicated that is correct. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. AN UPDATED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL. 2. THE DETACHED GARAGE SHALL MATCH THE HOME IN COLOR AND MATERIALS. Commissioner Viksnins stated that while he has no objection to the construction of a three -stall garage, he does not support the location since it is not consistent with the required setback. Commissioner Field stated that is why he had supported considering the CUP prior to the Variance. AYES 4 NAYS 2 (Commissioners Norton and Viksnins) ABSTAIN 1 (Commissioner McManus) Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 1, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE #10 -17 Crystal and Tracy Crocker 665 Hidden Creek Trail Wetlands Permit to plant two Weeping Willow Trees Planner Stephen Grittman explained that Crystal and Tracy Crocker are requesting approval of a Wetlands Permit to plant two Weeping Willow Trees in the rear yard at 665 Hidden Creek, which is within the required 70 -foot wetland buffer. He displayed a site plan to identify the subject site, noting the property is zoned R -lA, One Family Residential, and guided for RR, Rural Residential. Mr. Grittman stated this applicant received a Wetland Permit to allow for improvements within 100 feet of the existing wetland. Staff had reviewed that application to make sure the nature of the improvement did not negatively impact the function of the wetland. That permit was approved and specific to a landscape plan. Mr. Grittman advised that the applicants have now proposed to slightly amend the landscape plan to accommodate two additional tree plantings. Mr. Grittman presented the landscaping plan and noted the location of the two trees on the northwest corner of the property that will screen activity in the rear portion of their yard. Staff feels the plants will survive given the soil conditions, the planting would present little or no impact to the wetland function, and is compliant with the City's wetland regulations. Commissioner Viksnins asked how close this is to the wetland and how much soil will be moved to plant the two trees. Mr. Grittman stated it is within about 50 feet of the wetland. N. Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2010 Crystal Crocker, 665 Hidden Creek Trail, the applicant, stated they have four children, a pool, and active back yard. She advised that Oak Trees on the property to the west were removed, which opened the view so people can see into their back yard from the hill. Ms. Crocker assured the Planning Commission that they want to keep the wetland healthy and believe Willow Trees will do that and grow fast. She explained that their tree contractor has Willow Trees from three inches in diameter to ten feet high. Commissioner Viksnins asked about the degree of the slope. Ms. Crocker explained there is a gradual slope and the buckthorn is very thick so some was cleared to make room for the trees. There is reed grass on the other side of the buckthorns and the tree contractor has indicated the tree planting will result in very little disruption. Commissioner Field stated it is his driveway that goes up the hill. Ms. Crocker stated they would like to remove some of the buckthorn and replace it with native plantings. Commissioner Field stated it is unfortunate the Oak Tree was removed and agreed that a Willow Tree is the perfect species to plant in a wetland. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 7 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS REQUESTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES MUST FOLLOW THE CITY'S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. Commissioner Field stated he has been a bit contentious about approving Wetland Permits but in this case, it is good stewardship and he supports the motion. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 1, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE #10 -18 Elizabeth Tetzlaff 995 Diego Lane Conditional Use Permit for a 10 -foot x 20 -foot shed Planner Stephen Grittman explained that Elizabeth Tetzlaff is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a detached accessory building on their property at 995 Diego Lane that is over 144 square feet on a parcel that is less than four acres in size. The proposed 200 square foot, 10 feet by 20 feet, accessory building will be utilized as a storage outbuilding. Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant proposes a building that by size is construed to be a garage but will have a utility door so it could not be used to store cars and will be a storage building by design. To meet guidelines that the structure is a reasonable use of the property and will not impose on neighboring properties, the applicant has suggested building materials that are consistent with the single - family home. Staff has found that the building is consistent with the CUP standards if it is set back ten feet from the westerly property line and recommends approval. I Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2010 Commissioner McManus asked if the setback is from the side yard or back yard. Mr. Grittman stated the requirement for a building of this size is ten feet from any side or rear lot line and a five -foot setback is proposed. Commissioner Hennes asked if they looked at the concept of a ten -foot setback recommendation. Elizabeth Tetzlaff, 995 Diego Lane, stated they requested a five -foot setback so the shed does not obstruct anyone's view and they will plant tall shrubs along side to provide screening. She noted if the shed is required to be set back ten feet, it will impact a large Ash Tree. Dan Stoven, 995 Diego Lane, stated when they made application, staff said the setback requirement was five feet to the side lot line and ten feet to back lot line. Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek stated he misinformed the applicants because he forgot that if the structure is over 144 square feet, it is required to have a ten - foot setback to both lot lines. A five foot setback, as being requested, would require a Variance. Ms. Tetzlaff stated they proposed to construct a 10 -foot by 20 -foot shed instead of a 20 -foot by 20 -foot shed to protect the view and not impact trees. Chair Lally asked if a different sized shed would work since it would not impact the Ash Trees or need a Variance. Commissioner Norton explained the need for a Variance application which would not be considered until next month and have to meet the hardship requirement. Commissioner Povolny asked if a slab will be under the building. Mr. Stova stated there will be a slab but they will also have a Class V base. With the five -foot setback they will be 17 feet from the 50- year -old Ash Tree that has a higher root system. In addition, there is a Maple Tree at the same distance. Commissioner Viksnins noted the applicant has not made a Variance application so the consideration tonight is for a CUP. Mr. Grittman stated that is correct. Commissioner Viksnins stated if approved tonight, the setback requirement would have to be met. Commissioner Norton asked if they want to stay with the same size building and location. Ms. Tetzlaff answered in the affirmative because she does not want to block a view or impact the trees. It was noted the CUP can be considered tonight and the Variance considered next month. Commissioner Povolny stated a preference to consider both the CUP and Variance at the same time. Mr. Sedlacek advised that the Variance application fee is $100 to cover staff time. Commissioner McManus noted the building configuration could change, retain 200 square feet, yet met setbacks. Mr. Stoven stated that is why they applied for a 10 -foot wide building, because otherwise it will impact the tree's root system. Chair Lally recapped that with a 144 - square foot shed a CUP and Variance are not needed. If the structure is larger than 144 - square feet, a CUP is needed. If the structure is located too close to the lot line, a Variance is needed. Chair Lally stated if the application is for a 10 -foot by 20 foot shed located five feet off the property lot line, then it would be easier to layover this application to the June meeting and deal with both requests at the same meeting. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED TO POSTPONE CONSIDERATION AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE JUNE 22, 2010, MEETING. Commissioner McManus requested that residents in attendance be allowed to speak to the application prior to postponement. Commissioner Field withdrew his motion from the floor. 10 Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2010 Chair Lally opened the public hearing. John Murphy, 547 Winston Court, stated he is the neighbor to the west and requested that the CUP and Variance be denied. He displayed pictures of his garage and the proposed building location. He explained that he and the applicant's father had talked about planting three trees between their property line and he had measured the base of the trees which is usually 12 feet or wider to assure egress between the two properties. Mr. Murphy detailed the utility companies that have often used the ten -foot easement and expressed concern that the proposed building would block access to the ten -foot utility easement. Commissioner Field asked about the utility easement on the property line. Assistant Public Works Director /City Engineer Ruzek stated the easement is five feet on each property for a total of ten feet and is probably a platted easement. Commissioner Field noted if access is needed, the applicant would be required to move the shed at their own expense. Mr. Murphy stated he does not want a building of this large size because it will not enhance his property. He believed the applicant wanted to build this shed on his side because the other side has a big porch and looks nice. He displayed pictures of the beautiful Evergreen Trees that would be cut down to make room for the proposed shed. Mr. Murphy asked about egress to the shed, and displayed a picture showing the applicant's deck, the two trees they mentioned, and their garden. He stated he has no argument with the applicant about the appearance of their property but thinks the Evergreen Trees look nicer than the two trees they don't want to impact. Commissioner Field asked if the Evergreen Trees will be removed if the shed is approved. Mr. Murphy stated that is his understanding. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the concern is the view or location of the shed. Mr. Murphy stated it is both and he believed there were other locations for this shed. Commissioner Hennes asked if he would still object if the shed is 144 square feet with a ten -foot setback, noting it would need no City approvals. Mr. Murphy stated he would still object. Chair Lally asked if he would support approval if the Evergreen Trees are maintained. Mr. Murphy stated he would be more comfortable but still does not want to see a building this size. He displayed as picture of the back of his house, noting the small deck, garage, Evergreen Trees, telephone poles, and stated a large storage building would not enhance his property. Commissioner Norton stated the applicant has property rights that the City has no control over and one may be a building of this size if it meets setback requirements. Mr. Murphy asked if there has to be a legal need for the use before it is approved. Chair Lally explained that with a Variance consideration, a hardship must be proven. But, with a CUP consideration, if the conditions are met it is a permitted use. With this application, the size requires a CUP and the placement too close to the lot line requires a Variance. However, if the building is 144 square feet, then no permits are required. Mr. Murphy stated it is a hardship for him and he does not support this application. He asked if a survey is required for this application since no one knows the exact location of the property line. Chair Lally stated that would be the obligation of the person constructing the building. Commissioner Field noted the City has a metal detector that a resident can borrow to identify survey stakes, if desired. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NORTON, TO POSTPONE CONSIDERATION AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE JUNE 22, 2010, MEETING. 11 Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2010 AYES 7 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the applicants of their options and that this matter will be considered again by the Planning Commission at its June 22, 2010, meeting. Mr. Grittman stated if vegetation is relevant to the Commission's considerations he would request the applicant submit a site plan identifying the location of the trees. Commissioner Povolny asked if the five -foot utility easement is a consideration. Commissioner Field noted that by State Statutes, every property has a five -foot easement. Mr. Grittman stated as long as the building is off the easement, they have maintained the rights of the easement holder. PLANNING CASE #10 -19 William Stein 2465 Westview Terrace Wetlands Permit to install a ground source heat pump Planner Stephen Grittman explained that William Stein is requesting approval of a Wetlands Permit to install a ground source heat pump at 2465 Westview Terrace, a property zoned R -1, One Family Residential, and guided as Low Density Residential. He noted that at a previous meeting, the Planning Commission had considered the installation of a ground source heat pump and expressed interest in additional information related to the installation. The applicant is requesting reconsideration of the Permit and indicated they will do some reshaping of the rear yard, maintain the mound portion of the back yard, and re -grade it slightly to lower the height of the mound. Additional landscaping information was requested and is in process. Mr. Grittman advised that staff believes the installation of the heat pump is consistent with the requirements of the Wetland Ordinance and would have very little impact on the function of the wetland. In addition, the project would result in restoration of the existing topography and vegetation is consistent. Mr. Grittman stated staff recommends approval with conditions including submission of additional information on the landscaping. Chair Lally asked if the installation of the ground source heat pump is not an impact to the wetland but a question remains regarding whether the landscaping will preserve or degrade from the wetland. Mr. Grittman stated the heat pump would not impact the wetland since the ground will be restored. However, it now appears the ground will be restored to some other landscape than currently exists. Commissioner Field stated that the Planning Commission usually allows staff to deal with compliance of the final landscape plan. Mr. Grittman stated staff is comfortable working with the applicant on the final landscaping. Commissioner McManus asked if there will be no impact from this project. Mr. Grittman answered in the affirmative and explained that staff wants to see additional detail on landscaping within the 100 -foot wetland buffer. Commissioner McManus asked if the Planning Commission typically relies on staff to assure landscaping is adequate. Mr. Grittman stated that has been the common practice when additional buffering or landscaping has been requested. William Stein, 2465 Westview Terrace, the applicant, apologized for not being able to attend at the last meeting to answer the Commission's questions. He reviewed geothermal heat systems and cost savings, and advised that Federal and State cost incentives make it more affordable so the timing is good. Mr. Stein stated the trench will be 125 feet long, 18 feet wide and 8 feet deep and will be "slinky" coiled pipe that lies flat to the bottom of the trench. Commissioner McManus asked about the landscaping. Mr. Stein stated the geothermal system is costly so they propose minimal landscaping with regrading to the same topography and changing turf areas to mulch with native plantings. He used a site plan to identify the location of the fence and grass areas that used to be mowed but are now left unmowed and natural. He stated they would like to reduce the amount of turf to create more area for perennials. They do not plan pavers or hard landscaping at this point. 12 Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2010 Commissioner Norton asked if the contractor is present. Mr. Stein stated he is not present. Commissioner Norton asked if the system can be put in the pond. Mr. Stein stated it cannot because the system needs a minimum depth of six feet and the average depth of the pond is 5.9 feet. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NORTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 7 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A SITE PLAN INDICATING THE PROPOSED RESULTING CONTOURS BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW. 2. A DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY STAFF. 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION /EXCAVATION WORK MUST BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE PLATTED EASEMENT AREA. 4. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES MUST FOLLOW THE LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 1, 2010, meeting. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #10 -07 Aaron and Sarah Macke Critical Area Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #10 -08 Hayley Heidelberg and Roy Bester Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #10 -09 Karen Pimentel Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #10 -10 Maureen Haggerty Wetlands Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #10 -11 Julie Rosga Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #10 -12 City of Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance Amendment • Withdrawn until FEMA provides new map in June of 2011. As requested by Commissioner Field, Mr. Sedlacek provided an update on Mendota Plaza and reconfiguration of the McDonald's drive through that will require a Conditional Use Permit. COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:08 P.M. 13 Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 2010 AYES NAYS Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary 14